A co-founder of class action firm Pogust Goodhead intends to send a 'cease and desist' letter to get his name removed from the firm over its conduct in the ongoing dispute over representation in the Brazil dam collapse litigation.
Harris Pogust said in a LinkedIn post that his decision to give notice came after news that Pogust Goodhead had filed a claim over the issue of representation in the litigation over the collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In recent weeks Pogust Goodhead and Bailey Glasser International (BGI) have made a series of announcements contesting which firm will be running the second phase of the litigation dealing with quantum. A hearing is listed for next month to decide the issue.
Pogust said he is ‘embarrassed’ to have his name in claim forms over the ongoing ‘fight for control of the Mariana case’.
He said: ‘When a firm, which still has your name associated with it, files a claim form which named the firm’s clients as defendants and demands that they pay the firms costs and expenses if they switch firms, which [by the way] they have every right to do, the “I have had enough of this nonsense” meter erupts. I have never in my 39-year career sued a client. The thought has actually never crossed my mind. I was embarrassed to have my name anywhere on that document.
‘I sent notice that I intend to file a cease and desist to have my name removed from anything having to do with that firm. I plan to help those who need help and have their voices heard for many more years to come and I need those people to have 100% trust that I am looking out for their best interest not mine. So don’t expect to see the Pogust name used by that firm for much longer.’
Read more
Pogust added that he had ‘let certain people know’ he would work pro bono until the conclusion of the case ‘to make sure that the clients get the best possible outcome possible’.
A spokesperson for the firm rebutted Pogust’s claims that it was suing claimants over representation. The Gazette previously reported how the firm is seeking a declaration from the High Court over if a ‘client committee’ has the power to make decisions over representation on behalf of the majority of claimants.
A Pogust Goodhead spokesperson said: ‘The suggestion that PG is suing victims for choosing another lawyer is simply wrong. Not one individual claimant is being sued for exercising their right to choose their lawyer. The High Court is being asked to determine a fundamentally different question: whether a committee had authority to purport to make that choice collectively for more than 400,000 individual clients and transfer them to another firm.
‘A change of law firm does not erase eight years of legal work, funding, insurance, costs protection and existing contractual rights. PG has reserved its rights arising from that work; that is not the same as pursuing individual victims for legal bills. Individual clients are free to choose. The question for the Court is whether someone else was entitled to choose for 400,000 of them.
‘Our clients have waited almost eleven years for justice. They deserve clarity, protection and an uninterrupted path to the April 2027 trial - not misinformation about what the proceedings actually seek to determine.’
The firm added: ‘Harris Pogust has had no involvement in the management or operation of this firm for approximately three years, and neither former founder has any role in running the business today. We intend to move away from the Pogust Goodhead name. The firm has moved on from its former leadership and its name should too.’
No comments yet